A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that it is better for the Court to focus on its everyday task of hearing cases instead of wasting more time debating the recent attempt by a lawyer to attack Chief Justice of India BR Gavai by hurling a shoe at him, more so since CJI Gavai himself has indicated that he has moved past the incident.
The incident was mentioned this morning by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.
Singh today urged the Court to list a criminal contempt of court case tomorrow against advocate Rakesh Kishore who threw shoe at CJI Gavai on October 6.
"This shoe-throwing incident cannot go unnoticed like this. This person (the lawyer who threw the shoe) has no remorse. I have sought consent from the Attorney General and the criminal contempt (case could be) listed tomorrow. Social media has gone berserk," Singh said.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta agreed that the incident was a serious one.
"Consent (for initiating contempt proceedings against the lawyer) has been given...It is the institutional integrity at stake ... Some action was needed," Mehta remarked.
The Bench, however, questioned whether it was wise to continue keeping the incident in the spotlight.
"CJI has shown magnanimity and it shows that the institution is not affected as such," Justice Kant observed.
"The way this social media is being uncontrollably used .. Some are making a glory out of this ... And some are speaking of his (the lawyer's) courage etc. This is about the institution ... It cannot go on," SG Mehta persisted.
"We will treat this matter uninfluenced by anything else," the Court maintained.
Justice Bagchi went on to add,
"You have to consider - whether raking up an incident which we have given closure to, is it needed at all? Especially in an overburdened court. See spending 5 minutes on this, we could have decided cases where persons are in jail or want bail."
The judge indicated that he was not inclined to fuel an algorithm that works on hate by constantly rehashing the shoe-throwing incident.
"Algorithms are so designed that they work on hate, caste, anger, etc. So it gets more hits, likes. Your mentioning today will only be monetised. We do not have to cooperate on this monetisation and let it die a natural death," Justice Bagchi said.
The incident occurred on October 6, when Rakesh Kishore, whose lawyer's license has since been suspended by the Bar Council of India, threw a shoe in the Supreme Court towards the dais where CJI Gavai was sitting with Justice Vinod Chandran.
The attack was tied to CJI Gavai's comments in a previous case related to the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho. While dismissing that case, he had suggested that the litigant "go and ask the deity" for a solution.
The comment drew backlash, with several quarters terming the same as offensive to Hindu sentiments.
Further, CJI Gavai, while touring Mauritius, had made comments against bulldozer demolitions in India and spoke of how the Court had passed an order staying the same. While speaking to the media, Kishore also criticised the CJI's comments on this issue.
Today, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh condemned Kishore's attempt to attack the CJI, saying the same would be insulting to Lord Vishnu as well.
"This is an insult to Lord Vishnu also. I am sure he took would not want this," Singh said.
Justice Kant expressed agreement, saying,
"Our religion has never promoted violence. Just think about this..in social media everything becomes a saleable thing."
Singh then suggested that the Court could pass a blanket order against contemptuous comments on social media.
"This can be taken as John Doe order," he said, in this regard.
Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that such a blanket order would only trigger more debate. He went on to opine that what matters is that judges handle such attacks in a stoic manner.
"Such a John Doe order will lead to a cavalcade of comments. It is our behavior and how we handle ourselves that we garner respect. CJI has brushed it aside as an act of an irresponsible citizen. You have to consider, whether raking up an incident which we have given closure to. Is it needed at all? Especially in an overburdened court. See spending 5 minutes on this. We could have decided cases where persons are in jail or want bail," he said.
"The glorifying of the shoe-throwing incident needs to end," Singh asserted.
"Once we take this up, it will again be spoken about for weeks," Justice Kant pointed out.
"We have become money-spinning ventures," Justice Bagchi added, referring to how each comment made by the Court is subsequently publicised and monetised on various platforms.
"Social media works on algorithms and this makes us addicted. We (social media users) are in fact the products, it's not that we are using it," SG Mehta said.
"Algorithms are so designed that they work on hate, caste, anger, etc. So it gets more hits, likes. Your mentioning today will only be monetised. We do not have to cooperate on this monetisation and let it die a natural death," Justice Bagchi replied.
"The angst of the Bar is because of the attack on the institution," Singh added.
"We understand your concern and respect it," Justice Kant replied.
"Please list the criminal contempt tomorrow," Singh then urged.
"Let us see what happens in a week and read more saleable items," Justice Kant said, in turn.
"After the vacation maybe, some other saleable items will come up," Justice Bagchi added, before the Court moved on to the next matter.